Summary of Field Exchange Evaluation

From July to November 2012, the ENN undertook
an evaluation of Field Exchange (FEX) use amongst
its readers. The aims were to establish how FEX is
used to inform programming, policy and research,
to explore reader preferences for online and print
access and to examine perceptions of the ENN and
exposure to/engagement in other ENN activities.

The review was carried out for ENN by Bibi
Tolulope Oni & Illyahna Johnson, both studying
degrees in Nutrition at Oxford Brookes University,
and Tara Shoham, who is studying International
Development at the University of Sussex. The
review was supported by Thom Banks, ENN Desk
Operations Officer.

Method

The review took the form of an online survey that
was highlighted in FEX, on the ENN website, ennet
and Twitter. Targets were invited to complete
the online questionnaire, with the option for email
or phone call feedback if preferred.

Limitations

The survey was administered online which limited
feedback from those with difficult online access (a
key target audience of FEX print copy). While the
evaluation survey was highlighted in print edition
and telephone interview (ENN call back) offered as
a substitute, this option was poorly taken up. An
additional telephone questionnaire was planned
with a sample of participants. This proved a challenge
for the evaluation team to secure
conversation time with targets, thus the evaluation
has been largely based around the online feedback.

These findings should be interpreted as reflecting
the experiences of a sub-group of Field Exchange
users, biased towards those with online access.

Key findings

A total of 170 individuals completed the questionnaire,
of whom 41% were based in Africa, 27% in
Europe and 21% in Asia. North America accounted
for 6% of respondents, Australia 3% and South
America just 2% of the overall readership.
Nutrition/emergency nutrition advisors/ staff
were the dominant sectors of expertise of those
responding; other professionals included senior
management, academics and medics in areas
including health, food security and livelihoods.

Use of FEX

The majority (71%) highlighted the significant
contribution that FEX makes in updating their
knowledge of the sector. Some of the topics in FEX
which readers had learned from as well as valued
most, included:

Updates on international response to
humanitarian needs and awareness of other
activities done by other agencies in the
country and rural areas

Useful for reading up on country-specific
articles in preparation for working in the
country such as what has been done and
current situation.

Topics that respondents would like to see
covered more extensively in FEX included child
and mother malnutrition, breastfeeding, water
sanitation and hygiene (WASH) initiatives,
obesity in developing countries, the effects of
communicable diseases on nutritional status.
and articles with a broader food security scope,
reflecting the links between food poverty and
economic development. Outstanding challenging
areas were breastfeeding support and
artificial feeding in emergencies, CMAM scaleup
and programming.

Respondents would welcome more experiences
from parts of the world other than Africa
such as the Indian subcontinent, Afghanistan,
Middle East, Latin America and the former
Soviet Union.

Contribution to FEX

Over one quarter (28%) of respondents had
contributed written content to at least one
publication of FEX. Reported advantages of
doing so included the accessibility of the publication
and its worldwide reach. They praised
the easy process of dissemination, which has
been described as “An easier, quicker way to
get information out to a large key audience”
and “Is a unique platform for sharing practical
field experiences.”

Among the 72% of subscribers that had
never contributed to an article in FEX, the main
reasons given were lack of time, [perceived]
inadequate valuable experiences to share and
limited knowledge of the submission process. A
small number felt that they were not proficient
in the English language skills required for writing
an article.

Influence on programming, policy and
research

About 40% of the respondents reported that
FEX has influenced their agency programming
or policy. FEX “kick-started” discussion within
agencies about issues raised and acted as a catalyst
for change. Experiences shared have
informed the development of various projects
that have yielded much success in otherwise
challenging situations.

FEX was considered an important information
source that was used to inform policy
decisions, examples including help in amending
public health policy, such as promotion of
sub-contracting local partners to help reach
remote areas and developing agriculture policy
in response to nutrition forecasts. It has also
helped inform NGOs to amend their policies to
favour more sustainable programmes.
Published experiences have also been used in
developing, implementing and improving
training packages.

There was clear consensus that FEX helped
to clearly identify important areas for research
and highlight important experiences gained
through different programming. Overall, 37%
of respondents were researchers.

“Most of my research ideas have emerged through
research undertaken by FEX. This has especially
included areas of CMAM, scale-up, livelihood
programming, early warning, treatment and
prevention of moderate malnutrition”.

Of note, however, 30% of researchers
reported that publishing research findings in
FEX had some disadvantages, citing competing
interest with other scientific/academic journals
and FEX may be viewed as a less credible publication
due the lack of a peer review process.

Print and online access and preference

Nearly one-third of those surveyed (32%) had
been receiving print copies for 5 years or more.
Sixty percent of respondents accessed FEX
content online and 21% accessed online content
at least once a week. Of those that did not
access FEX online, half (51%) attributed this to a
“preference for print copy” while 15% stated it
was due to a lack of online access and 13% of
readers are now accessing FEX via smart phone
or tablets.

Receiving print copies of FEX was rated as
the most desirable format among respondents.
While acknowledging the cost implications,
respondents appreciated the accessibility of
print – they can read it at times convenient to
them and share between colleagues. It also
catered for those without easy access to
computers or the internet.

Perception of the ENN

The survey feedback continually highlighted
how FEX creates a platform for effective
communication, sharing of ideas and personal
experiences between a multitude of professional
bodies, from field workers and
practitioners to policy makers. Many
commented on ENN’s ability to bring together
a network of agencies with shared interests. It is
“an impartial sharing body, useful and valued voice
to lobby for open debates and policy change when it
may be difficult to do so as a single agency or where
there is no time to create a network of agencies with
shared interests”.

Other’s considered ENN has an important
role in providing a vital link between the field,
global activities, governing of NGOs and UN
agencies and policy development:“ENN plays a
significant role in the collating experience, facilitating
the process of specific technical support for
different areas, research, publication and dissemination
of key outcomes and lesson to be learnt. ENN
plays a huge part in knowledge sharing and providing
technical clarity which can be otherwise limited
in the field of nutrition”.

Respondents felt that without ENN there
would be a lack of open access to learning and
sharing of vital information, and unawareness
of detailed key experiences of programmes
taking place in different countries, which are
useful for knowledge management in field practices.
They also identified that without ENN
there would be an increase in duplicated errors
in practices and programming in humanitarian
and developmental work, as success stories
would not have been easily distributed globally.
ENN provides a window into potential gaps in
knowledge. It also acts as a centralised space for those with limited access to academic libraries,
as it publishes well-researched articles addressing
relevant issues in one space.

Only half (53%) of respondents were aware
of ENN activities other than FEX. Amongst
these, the most commonly known was ‘infant
and young feeding in emergencies’ (92%).
Around half were aware of operational
research, special supplement publications,
meeting facilitation/ reports and en-net.

Respondents would appreciate ENN becoming
involved in activities such as provision of
training, organisation of seminars, regional
workshops, and capacity building programmes
(in southern and developing nations).
Specifically, suggestions were made for more
training in data analysis, access to nutrition
data analysis programmes, and methods for
assessing nutrition and health status aimed at
researchers. More guidance on tools for CMAM
and ready to use supplementary foods (RUSF)
and better integration of implemented
programmes worldwide was also highlighted.
Sponsorships, scholarships, training certifications
and awareness session were mentioned
for students. It was suggested that “ENN should
engage more with local humanitarians in developing
countries. As of now, more focus is given to international
agencies.”

One quarter (24%) of respondents expressed
interest in receiving regular updates from ENN
via email including were more regular updates
about jobs, consulting opportunities and
research opportunities.

Conclusions

This evaluation reflects the experiences of a
sub-group of FEX users and provides valuable
insights into their use and opinion of Field
Exchange. Findings from this evaluation will
inform ENNs planning for Field Exchange in
2013 and under consideration are:

Implications of format change to Field
Exchange (A4) in terms of article length,
layout, etc.

Clearer guidance on the process for article
submission and support the FEX editorial
team can offer

Stronger dissemination regarding FEX
online access and on other ENN activities
using multi-media

Possible peer reviewed section of FEX

Increase number of national contributors to
FEX content, linking closely with Nutrition
Exchange

As discussed, this evaluation had significant
limitations and is not necessarily or likely
representative of all print and online users. A
means to evaluate more thoroughly the experiences
and needs of FEX readership will be
pursued by ENN in 2013 as part of a larger
piece of work within ENN to strengthen monitoring
and evaluation.

The ENN welcomes feedback at any time
regarding FEX or other ENN activities. Any
comments or suggestions you have, please
share them with Thom Banks,
thom@ennonline.net